During the COVID-19 pandemic, NHS England introduced colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) at scale to support the recovery of endoscopy. Symptomatic patients referred with suspected colorectal cancer (CRC) and a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) ≤ 100 μg Hb/g faeces were offered CCE.

To evaluate the safety, diagnostic accuracy and utility of CCE in this setting.

Consenting patients, referred on a suspected CRC pathway with FIT ≤ 100 μg Hb/g faeces, were offered CCE, colonoscopy or CT colonography. Each cohort was to be age-, sex-, symptom- and FIT-matched. We performed a paired comparison of findings in those who required colorectal endoscopy after CCE and recorded clinical outcomes.

We recruited 4878 patients for CCE, 5025 for colonoscopy and 466 for CT colonography patients. CCE was safely tolerated by 98.4% of patients. CCE identified a matched mass lesion in all patients with CRC when the examination was complete and adequately prepared. More polyps ≥ 10 mm and 6-9 mm were detected by CCE than by colonoscopy or CT colonography. Per-patient sensitivities for polyps ≥ 10 mm and 6-9 mm were 97% in those with a paired, complete and adequately prepared CCE than colonoscopy. Completion (74%) and bowel preparation adequacy rates (74%) were poorer than those of colonoscopy and CTC (both 88%). However, CCE usefully performed a filter function in 86% of patients.

CCE is safe and accurate for the diagnosis of colorectal disease. In the suspected CRC pathway, its 'filter function' complements existing colorectal diagnostic services by creating additional capacity.

The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) recommends definitive treatment of rectal cancer commence within 60 days from diagnosis. This study aimed to assess predictors of >60 days delay between diagnosis and definitive surgery of rectal cancer and the impact on survival and short-term outcomes.

Retrospective cohort analysis of patients with stage I-III rectal adenocarcinoma who underwent proctectomy without preoperative neoadjuvant treatment from the National Cancer Database (2015-2019). Based on the time interval between diagnosis and definitive surgery, patients were divided into timely non-adherent (>60 days) and timely-adherent (≤60 days) groups. Multivariate analysis determined predictors of delayed definitive surgery.

9479 patients (57.5 % males; mean age: 63.7 years) had a 41-day median time between diagnosis and definitive surgery. Non-adherence was noted in 27.9 % of patients. Independent predictors of non-adherence were male sex (Odds ratio [OR]: 1.25; p < 0.001), Black (OR: 1.65; p < 0.001) or Asian (OR: 1.33; p = 0.014) race, Charlson score 2 (OR: 1.33; p = 0.005) or 3 (OR: 1.55; p < 0.001), urban residence (OR: 1.21; p = 0.003), abdominoperineal resection (OR: 1.69; p < 0.001), pelvic exenteration (OR: 1.7; p = 0.002), and robotic-assisted surgery (OR: 1.22; p = 0.001). Medicare (OR: 0.725; p = 0.003) and private insurance (OR: 0.711; p < 0.001) were associated with better adherence. 30-day and 90-day mortality, unplanned readmission, and overall survival were similar.

Male Black or Asian patients with high Charlson scores, and undergoing abdominoperineal resection, pelvic exenteration, and robotic-assisted surgery were more likely non-adherent with NAPRC standards with >60 days delay before definitive surgery for rectal cancer. Hopefully, recognition for these reasons for delay of definitive surgery will lead to an improvement in adherence to the standards.

Our prospective international survey evaluated the impact of the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management gynaecological malignancies from the multidisciplinary physicians' perspective with particular focus on clinical infrastructures and trial participation.

Our survey consisted of 53 COVID-related questions. It was sent to healthcare professionals in gynaecological oncology centres across Europe and Pan-Arabian region via the study groups and gynaecological societies from April 2020 to October 2020. All healthcare professionals treating gynaecological cancers were able to participate in our survey.

A total of 255 answers were collected from 30 countries. The majority (73%) of participants were gynaecological oncologists from university hospitals (71%) with at least an Intensive Care Unit with cardiopulmonary support available at their institutions. Most institutions continued to perform elective surgeries only for oncological cases (98%). Patients had to wait on average 2 weeks longer for their surgery appointments compared to previous years (range 0-12 weeks). Most cases that were prioritised for surgical intervention across all gynaecological tumours were early-stage disease (74%), primary situation (61%) and good ECOG status (63%). The radicality of surgery did not change in the majority of cases (78%) across all tumour types. During the pandemic, only 38% of clinicians stated they would start a new clinical trial. Almost half of the participants stated the pandemic negatively impacted the financial structure and support for clinical trials. Approximately 20% of clinicians did not feel well-informed regarding clinical algorithm for COVID-19 patients throughout the pandemic. Thirty percent stated that they are currently having trouble in providing adequate medical care due to staff shortage.

Despite well-established guidelines, pandemic clearly affected clinical research and patientcare. Our survey underlines the necessity for building robust emergency algorithms tailored to gynaecological oncology to minimise negative impact in crises and to preserve access to clinical trials.

The first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Spain lasted from middle March to the end of June 2020. Spanish population was subjected to lockdown periods and scheduled surgeries were discontinued or reduced during variable periods. In our centre, we managed patients previously and newly diagnosed with cancer. We established a strategy based on limiting perioperative social contacts, preoperative screening (symptoms and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction) and creating separated in-hospital COVID-19-free pathways for non-infected patients. We also adopted some practice modifications (surgery in different facilities, changes in staff and guidelines, using continuously changing personal protective equipment…), that supposed new inconveniences.

To analyse cancer patients with a decision for surgery managed during the first wave, focalizing on outcomes and pandemic-related modifications.

We prospectively included adults with a confirmed diagnosis of colorectal, oesophago-gastric, liver-pancreatic or breast cancer with a decision for surgery, regardless of whether they ultimately underwent surgery. We analysed short-term outcomes [30-d postoperative morbimortality and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection] and outcomes after 3 years (adjuvant therapies, oncological events, death, SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination). We also investigated modifications to usual practice.

From 96 included patients, seven didn't receive treatment that period and four never (3 due to COVID-19). Operated patients: 28 colon and 21 rectal cancers; laparoscopy 53.6%/90.0%, mortality 3.57%/0%, major complications 7.04%/25.00%, anastomotic leaks 0%/5.00%, 3-years disease-free survival (DFS) 82.14%/52.4% and overall survival (OS) 78.57%/76.2%. Six liver metastases and six pancreatic cancers: no mortality, one major complication, three grade A/B liver failures, one bile leak; 3-year DFS 0%/33.3% and OS 50.0%/33.3% (liver metastases/pancreatic carcinoma). 5 gastric and 2 oesophageal tumours: mortality 0%/50%, major complications 0%/100%, anastomotic leaks 0%/100%, 3-year DFS and OS 66.67% (gastric carcinoma) and 0% (oesophagus). Twenty breast cancer without deaths/major complications; 3-year OS 100% and DFS 85%. Nobody contracted SARS-CoV-2 postoperatively. COVID-19 pandemic-related changes: 78.2% treated in alternative buildings, 43.8% waited more than 4 weeks, two additional colostomies and fewer laparoscopies.

Some patients lost curative-intent surgery due to COVID-19 pandemic. Despite practice modifications and 43.8% delays higher than 4 weeks, surgery was resumed with minimal changes without impacting outcomes. Clean pathways are essential to continue surgery safely.

We undertook a retrospective study to compare the quality of care delivered to a cohort of newly diagnosed adults with colon, rectal or anal cancer during the early phase of COVID-19 (02/20-12/20) relative to the same period in the year prior (the comparator cohort), and examine the impact of the pandemic on 2-year disease progression and all-cause mortality. We observed poorer performance on a number of quality measures, such as approximately three times as many patients in the COVID-19 cohort experienced 30-day post-surgical readmission (10.5% vs. 3.6%; SD:0.27). Despite these differences, we observed no statistically significant adjusted associations between COVID-19 and time to either all-cause mortality (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.61-1.27, p = 0.50) or disease progression (HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 0.82-1.64, p = 0.41). However, there was a substantial reduction in new patient consults during the early phase of COVID-19 (12.2% decrease), which appeared to disproportionally impact patients who traditionally experience sociodemographic disparities in access to care, given that the COVID-19 cohort skewed younger and there were fewer patients from neighborhoods with the highest Housing and Dwelling, ands Age and Labour Force marginalization quintiles. Future work is needed to understand the more downstream effects of COVID-19 related changes on cancer care to inform planning for future disruptions in care.

Timely treatment for patients with colorectal cancer may have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the impact of the pandemic on delays to treatment with surgery or systemic therapy for patients with colorectal cancer and delineated factors predictive of delayed treatment.

Using the National Cancer Database, patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer were categorized by year of diagnosis as COVID-19 era (2020) versus pre-COVID-19 (2018-2019). Categorical variables were compared by χ2 analysis. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess odds ratios for delayed time to surgery or chemoimmunotherapy, defined as >60 days.

In total, 50,689 patients colorectal cancer were diagnosed patients who were pre-COVID-19 vs 21,331 within the COVID-19-era. Patients diagnosed with COVID-19 had a higher stage at diagnosis. There were no differences in the proportion of delayed time to surgery for patients diagnosed in 2020, but patients who were tested for COVID-19 had increased proportions of delayed time to surgery (P < .0001). In multivariate analysis, Black race (P = .0026) and uninsured/underinsured status (P = .0017) were associated with delayed time to surgery. Diagnosis during COVID-19 did not increase delayed time to chemoimmunotherapy, regardless of COVID-19 testing or positivity; however, delays were seen for Black (P < .0001), Hispanic (P < .0001), and uninsured/underinsured patients (P < .0001).

Although the pandemic did not delay treatment for colorectal cancer overall, vulnerable and underserved populations were disproportionately affected by delays to all forms of therapy. The difference in colorectal cancer outcomes in the coming years as a result of delays in treatment may be significant for these patients.

Our aim was to determine the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the diagnosis and prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC).

This prospective cohort study included individuals diagnosed with CRC between March 13, 2019 and June 20, 2021 across 21 Spanish hospitals. Two time periods were compared: prepandemic (from March 13, 2019 to March 13, 2020) and pandemic (from March 14, 2020 to June 20, 2021, lockdown period and 1 year after lockdown).

We observed a 46.9% decrease in the number of CRC diagnoses (95% confidence interval (CI): 45.1%-48.7%) during the lockdown and 29.7% decrease (95% CI: 28.1%-31.4%) in the year after the lockdown. The proportion of patients diagnosed at stage I significantly decreased during the pandemic (21.7% vs. 19.0%; p = 0.025). Centers that applied universal preprocedure SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing experienced a higher reduction in the number of colonoscopies performed during the pandemic post-lockdown (34.0% reduction; 95% CI: 33.6%-34.4% vs. 13.7; 95% CI: 13.4%-13.9%) and in the number of CRCs diagnosed (34.1% reduction; 95% CI: 31.4%-36.8% vs. 26.7%; 95% CI: 24.6%-28.8%). Curative treatment was received by 87.5% of patients diagnosed with rectal cancer prepandemic and 80.7% of patients during the pandemic post-lockdown period (p = 0.002).

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a decrease in the number of diagnosed CRC cases and in the proportion of stage I CRC. The reduction in the number of colonoscopies and CRC diagnoses was higher in centers that applied universal SARS-CoV-2 PCR screening before colonoscopy. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has affected curative treatment of rectal cancers.

The association between volume, complications and pathological outcomes is still under debate regarding colorectal cancer surgery. The aim of the study was to assess the association between centre volume and severe complications, mortality, less-than-radical oncologic surgery, and indications for neoadjuvant therapy.

Retrospective analysis of 16,883 colorectal cancer cases from 80 centres (2018-2021). Outcomes: 30-day mortality; Clavien-Dindo grade >2 complications; removal of ≥ 12 lymph nodes; non-radical resection; neoadjuvant therapy. Quartiles of hospital volumes were classified as LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH, and VERY HIGH. Independent predictors, both overall and for rectal cancer, were evaluated using logistic regression including age, gender, AJCC stage and cancer site.

LOW-volume centres reported a higher rate of severe postoperative complications (OR 1.50, 95% c.i. 1.15-1.096, P = 0.003). The rate of ≥ 12 lymph nodes removed in LOW-volume (OR 0.68, 95% c.i. 0.56-0.85, P < 0.001) and MEDIUM-volume (OR 0.72, 95% c.i. 0.62-0.83, P < 0.001) centres was lower than in VERY HIGH-volume centres. Of the 4676 rectal cancer patients, the rate of ≥ 12 lymph nodes removed was lower in LOW-volume than in VERY HIGH-volume centres (OR 0.57, 95% c.i. 0.41-0.80, P = 0.001). A lower rate of neoadjuvant chemoradiation was associated with HIGH (OR 0.66, 95% c.i. 0.56-0.77, P < 0.001), MEDIUM (OR 0.75, 95% c.i. 0.60-0.92, P = 0.006), and LOW (OR 0.70, 95% c.i. 0.52-0.94, P = 0.019) volume centres (vs. VERY HIGH).

Colorectal cancer surgery in low-volume centres is at higher risk of suboptimal management, poor postoperative outcomes, and less-than-adequate oncologic resections. Centralisation of rectal cancer cases should be taken into consideration to optimise the outcomes.

Social media has completely transformed communication among surgeons. Although we have learned a lot, we still have many challenges to resolve with these tools. Nevertheless, social media has opened many novel opportunities for the surgical community worldwide. Many of these opportunities would never be realized without social media tools, especially in low and middle-income countries. We will discuss the main tools and their applications for increasing opportunities for international surgeons.

Clinical acumen and experience are critical in the diagnosis of the commonest surgical emergency, acute appendicitis. However, there is an increasing focus on haematological and radiological parameters in reaching the diagnosis of appendicitis, which can negate the importance of clinical findings. The aim was to assess the accuracy of each grade of the surgical team in diagnosing acute appendicitis using clinical acuity alone and compare them to each other as well as validated predictive scores.

A prospective single-centre study was performed over a six-month period (Dec 2020-May 2021). All patients presenting to the emergency department with right iliac fossa pain were included.

A total of 180 patients were included of whom 35% were male. Mean age was 36.2 years (range 16-91). 51.1% had a final diagnosis of appendicitis, of which 91.3% were managed surgically and 8.7% were treated conservatively with antibiotics. Consultants were correct in their prediction of appendicitis in 84.6% of cases (females-83.4%, males-86.6%). Registrars accurately predicted appendicitis in 82.2% of patients (females-80.3%, males-85.7%), whilst house officers (SHOs) and interns were right in 73.8% (females-69.2%, males-82.5%) and 72.7% (females-66.6%, males-83.9%) of cases, respectively. In patients with a histological or radiological diagnosis of appendicitis, the mean Acute Inflammatory Response Score and Acute Appendicitis Score were 7.0 (high risk ≥ 9) and 12.5 (high risk ≥ 16), respectively. Clinicians had superior diagnostic accuracy when compared with both the clinical scores used.

Seniority was associated with improved diagnostic accuracy in clinically predicting acute appendicitis. This study showed that the clinical judgement of experienced surgeons is more reliable than clinical scores in the diagnosis of appendicitis.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been a real challenge for health systems and public policies. Both the pandemic and the measures taken to mitigate it have affected the freedoms and rights of the different sectors of society, especially the most vulnerable ones, and have increased the already existing structural inequalities. Consequently, the pandemic must be analyzed from the perspective of human rights. Transitional Justice (TJ) has proven to be useful after conflict situations, helping societies to confront abuses perpetrated and to find solutions for the future, as well as repairing damages that have arisen as a consequence of these conflicts in different areas. Thus, TJ processes have been successfully used after armed conflicts and during peace negotiations, to respond to abuses perpetrated in consolidated democracies, and even after environmental crises. Therefore, the creation of a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission for the COVID-19 pandemic", which launches the TJ processes of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-repetition can help to find solutions to conflicts arising from the pandemic in a simple way. In addition, it would establish the foundations to prevent the violation of human rights in similar situations to come.

During first outburst of COVID-19, several strategies had been applied for surgical oncology patients to minimize COVID-19 transmission. COVID-19 infection seemed to compromise survival and major complication rates of surgical oncology patients. However, survival, tumor progression and recurrence rates of surgical oncology patients were associated to the consequences of COVID-19 pandemic on their management. In addition, the severity of COVID-19 infections has been downgraded. Therefore, management of surgical oncology patients should be reconsidered.